At the same time, the DisCo did not level any punishment against San Jose, despite two altercations between the Earthquakes coaching staff and the Rapids and five San Jose yellow cards.

Rapids fans were upset that, after all of the brouhaha, only Colorado was punished.

So we asked Nelson Rodriguez[3], the MLS vice president of competition, technical and game operations, for an explanation. Rodriguez oversees the MLS Disciplinary Committee. Their role is to add a “last line of defense” in controlling dangerous play in MLS. And they work off set guidelines for suspensions and discipline.[4]

Here is what Nelson had to say…

First, for background, what is the process for reviewing games? Do you re-watch every minute of every game?

We have at least two people who watch every game live. Most of the time that’s live via broadcast. Then over the course of a weekend, we have four or five people watch all 90 minutes of every game. Each of those observers watch the game and they identify certain plays that may be worthy of review. The full disciplinary committee generally then meets Monday morning. At that point, they already have in their possession video of incidents they are questioning. Then a discussion ensues that determines whether those incidents deserve supplemental decisions.

Is the disciplinary committee finished with punishments for the Colorado-San Jose match? And are there any appeals or decisions still pending?

Yes, we’re done with that game. To my recollection, we’ve always succeeded in decisions. If there’s going to be supplemental action, we want it to be done following that game. We’re trying to avoid one player missing a particular game.

The player, through the players union, has the right to appeal. Now that’s the player through his union, not the club. And the player can’t appeal every decision. They can only appeal those decisions that are two or more games or those that meet certain fine thresholds.

The San Jose coaching staff was warned, officially warned, for its behavior in the game against Colorado. But that’s the only action for San Jose that came out of that match.

Oscar Pareja.

Hendry Thomas’ suspension came for a tackle he attempted that resulted in a foul, but no yellow card. He was given a yellow card for a different play, but that’s not what he was suspended for. Can you explain?

The incident that resulted in supplemental discipline occurred in first half stoppage time. Thomas, in the view of the committee, launches himself at his opponent. To be clear, Thomas leaves both feet and goes airborne into his challenge against Steven Beitashour. When a player does that, they are clearly not in control of their body. There was a belief he did so with excessive force and with studs exposed. And such a challenge really puts an opponent in compromised safety. It was not believed to be a traditional challenge. It’s not the way players should be taught to challenge, because the risk of injury is high. And while Beitashour finished the match, his status for this weekend remains in doubt

So later injury announcements, or any post-game results of challenges that happen, are taken into account in disciplinary decisions?

Timelines dictate some of that. To go back to an unfortunate and infamous situation, Steve Zakuani’s injury was profound and gruesome. And yes, the severity of that injury played a part in the suspension of Brian Mullan.

In this incident (Thomas’ suspension), it’s unsure whether Beitashour will miss time or not. But regardless, it’s clear that tackle was reckless. That’s an example of how we hope decisions like these will modify behavior. If players choose to play in that manner, they risk running into a suspension.

In regard to Thomas, he was given a yellow card earlier in the game. The committee didn’t seen a suspendable offense in that play?

It appeared to be a clean tackle. Now, that led to a scrum and a confrontation between players and coaches. Which is also what unfortunately led to Oscar Pareja’s suspension.

And for Pareja’s suspension — after he pulled Thomas away from a confrontation — was it a something deliberated by the committee or did it come directly by rule?

That was by rule. It was completely a black and white rule. And the rule even uses the word “automatic.” This is the first year of that rule. It was put into place precisely for two reasons. One, we didn’t want to get in the business of having to decide who was a peacemaker and who is intensifying a conflict. Two, while you can clearly see that Oscar Pareja’s intervention calmed the matter, it easily could have intensified it. If a player, for instance, had reached around him, it could have created a situation that was dangerous for everyone and for Pareja. Incidentally, the referee has the ability to dismiss or send off coaches or players who come on the field. It’s automatic. We’re not reading intent.

The two retroactive suspensions levied on the Rapids didn’t include one for Atiba Harris, who received a red card for a hard tackle. Did you look at that play?

The view of the committee was that the red card administered, which occurred relatively early in the match, plus the automatic suspension, was sufficient punishment for that action.

And the play early in the second that resulted in yellow cards for Hendry Thomas and Chris Wondolowski, did the committee consider punishments for that sequence? Was a punishment considered for San Jose coach Mark Watson for kicking the ball back on the field at Thomas?

The committee did review that. It contributed to the warning against the San Jose coaching staff. In general, we understand that one of the great elements of soccer is the passion it invokes, in those who compete in the arena and those who witness it. But coaches should be held to a higher standard. While it was unpleasant, nothing between the parties involved rose to the level that should result in further punitive sanctions. Mark Watson was given a warning for what occurred during the game with Thomas. His staff was given one for what happened after the game.

Colorado goalkeeper Clint Irwin wrote a few weeks ago[5], before the San Jose game, arguing for an end the review of plays that were already dealt with by the match referee. How do you counter that argument?

It’s a fair argument. It’s one that is made around the world. I think the practical reality is, the game is moving at a speed that is so great and officials who are even in a good spot might not be able to fairly judge a certain action. The disciplinary committee is really intended to be the last line of defense. The endangering of player safety usually occurs by another player.

So first, it would be best that players amongst themselves would recognize they are all brethren looking to make a living by the same means. The second line of defense should be the coaching staffs, in terms of what they teach their players are acceptable behaviors and what are acceptable challenges that aren’t dangerous tackles. The third line of defense is the referee. At the time, we hope he feels empowered to punish those incidents, much like Atiba Harris’ challenge.

When all of that breaks down, the last backstop is the disciplinary committee. The committee’s mission is very clear: It is to assist in ensuring player safety and assist in preserving the image of the sport and MLS. We understand the opinion of people who say, ‘don’t re-ref the game.’ We still think it’s too important to get it right and modify behavior that will ultimately yield a better on-field product.

What response do you get from referees? Are they comfortable with the disciplinary committee “re-refereeing” games?

We — I, since I specifically oversee the committee — speak with PRO (the Professional Referee Organization) on a regular basis to ensure that some of the decisions taken by the disciplinary committee aren’t misconstrued to undermine the authority and integrity of the officials themselves. With very few exceptions so far, the PRO has agreed with the decisions of the committee. We are very cognizant of the fact, so we try to work closely with PRO so that referees feel supported. But also that it’s very clear to them we need to oversee behavior that is and isn’t acceptable in our league.

Is the disciplinary committee achieving its goals? Is MLS a safer league than before?

It’s a question we constantly evaluate for ourselves at the midpoint of every year and at the end. The board of governors gave the disciplinary committee an intensified direction prior to the 2012 season. In essence, they said we are looking for a more active and involved disciplinary committee. So the committee has looked at and ruled on more actions since then than ever before.

Toward the tail end of last season, and this is anecdotal, but we did believe we saw a reduction in the number of plays reviewed and, in particular, a reduction in the number of rash challenges that are committed. But that is still too small a sample size. So we are constantly evaluating whether we are getting the balance right, so that we aren’t re-referring games while still ensuring player safety.

Very interesting. The problem with the DisCo is the total lack of consistency. Last week we saw DC United’s Daniel Woolard split open by a nasty elbow from one of Toronto’s players who got off totally scot-free. You had Lee Ngyuen grab a Vancouver player in a headlock with no consequences at all. the DisCo is a joke.